Will legalized Gay Marriage threaten Liberty?

Peaceful existence in a nation rich in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity requires the civility of citizens who show respect for those who differ from them. Requiring such goodwill is good for the nation. People who (within the law) choose different beliefs, morals and lifestyles, must be asked to live in harmony with one another. And we have made great strides in promoting respect–particularly through civil rights on race and gender, and through special laws protecting the disabled.

What greatly concerns me is the inclusion of sexual preference into the category of civil rights. This is dangerous to liberty because civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle. The referendums that have appeared on the ballots in several states have confirmed that most Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them or normalized for everyone.

Like all civilized people, we have laws restricting some types of sexual behavior. Rape, incest and all sexual contact between adults and children are rightly illegal. Beyond these restrictions, consenting adults are free to live their sexual preferences. But to ask our nation to make new and special laws for these preferences is to force the lifestyle choices of others on everyone. If a homosexual lifestyle, for example, becomes a protected status equal with race and gender, people will not be free to be morally opposed to homosexual behavior. Comparison of race or gender with sexual orientation is a false comparison.

It is equally ill-advised to seek a radical redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate the sexual preference of a small group of Americans. Americans clearly do not want this to happen. Sexual preferences outside of heterosexuality are not matters of nature. Heterosexuality is a matter of nature because without it there would be no human race.

Yet in a civilized nation, people should be asked to treat respectfully those who (lawfully) choose different sexual lifestyles. But when these lifestyles are forced on others as is happening in States like Massachusetts, liberty is wrongly threatened. Let’s be clear: forced affirmation and endorsement of lifestyles you disagree with is a threat to true freedom. There is an important difference between required respect (which is necessary) and forced affirmation or indoctrination. In a free and diverse nation, tolerance is a safeguard to civility. But tolerance that asks for more than respectful treatment of others, is not only deeply misguided, it is a form of intolerance.

If we don’t respect this distinction, the liberty of our nation will be threatened. We will be under the tyranny of tolerance and no exception will be tolerated! Parents and teachers in public schools in Massachusetts are feeling the destruction of liberty as their children are facing forced indoctrination of the homosexual lifestyle. Elementary-aged children are being sent home with diversity packets without parental consent and parents are being forced to comply. Business owners and doctors are also being forced to affirm homosexual preferences that violate their beliefs and morals.

This is not tolerance, nor is it respectful. It is coerced approval of the lifestyle choices of others. Discrimination (in actual civil-rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature, not for lifestyles they choose. It is a threat to liberty to start protecting lifestyles with special laws and forcing those lifestyles on others. People who chose a homosexual lifestyle once said they only wanted to be left alone to live they way they desired. In a free nation, this would be a fair request and could be enforced with existing laws.

But the radical homosexual community does not want tolerance and freedom to live their preference. They want forced acceptance and indoctrination on everyone (even our children) to normalize their sexual choices in society. If the nation goes the way of Massachusetts, liberty will be profoundly disrupted, chaos will follow and the great progress we’ve made will be unnecessarily threatened.

27 comments on “Will legalized Gay Marriage threaten Liberty?”

Thinkpoint, for as much apparent effort as you put into that article, I find myself unable to address all the errors within it individually. But of course, the most fatal error you make is that you attempt to use reason. And hey, I appreciate the effort – many in the debate don’t even TRY to employ reason, relying instead on emotion, or uncloaked religious zealotry, or simply childish taunting. However, the only conclusion one can come to from your efforts is that it is simply not possible to support your position from a platform of reason.

Truthfully, you don’t really make it out of your first paragraph before you begin basing your argument on false assumptions – in this case, that sexual preference is not genetically based. I’m not interested in debating whether it is or isn’t with you, but the very fact that you admit that it is at least debatable, means any arguments which depend on this assumption are meaningless.

The vast majority of the remaining arguments depends on the assumption that homosexuality is immoral. However, you show no evidence for its immorality. I’m sure you believe it is immoral yourself out of your own personal religious bias, but this obviously has no place in a purely reason-based argument (nor within the framework of our constitution). And surely anyone with even the slightest bit of rhetorical acumen can admit that something can’t be demonstrated to be good or bad just because “it’s the way it’s always been done”.

Really, once you go back and strip your argument of everything based in your own personal religious views and bias, there is not a single paragraph that holds up. Indeed, there is hardly a single sentence. Without these false assumptions, there is no support for the idea of “special laws” or “forced affirmation” or the like. Really some of the arguments you pose become quite silly when viewed through an objective lens.

And I’m well aware that you hate this topic being included under the banner of “civil rights” because it in some way compares you to racists and slavery defenders. This SEEMS harsh because virtually everyone today knows how horrible those racial attitudes of yesterday were. Racists are just horrible people…

But the people who were alive at that time didn’t think they theselves were horrible. They had reasons, and arguments, and counter arguments, and references to scripture, and moral principle, and community support, and a sense of certainty backed by thousands of years of tradition. Truth be told, they were simply flawed people whose views and biases were too rooted in that world to see that they would one day in the distant future be universally judged as villains. Or at least proponents of a monstrous position.

It was certainly not the first time in history a people have clung all too tightly to a traditional idea they were unable to free themselves of. And now, years later, we watch movies about those people and think to ourselves: “Wow. How could people have been like that back then? They must have been crazy. Or filled with evil. I’m glad it’s not like that anymore.” But of course they were not crazy. They were just normal people… Like you… Unable to find the independence their eyes needed to see clearly through the cloud of their environments and biases. I imagine they wrote fervently in support of their positions… so sure of themselves… so confident that their fight for this traditional idea was a noble one.

I wonder if we were somehow able to talk to one of them now on a message board or blog, if we would be able to find the words to make them think twice and to take a long hard critical look at themselves and their beliefs. To cut through all their defense mechanisms, if only for a brief moment. Do you think that’s possible? Do you think someone like that can be reached? I’d LIKE to believe it…

But then, I realize that what I’d like to believe and what is true are sometimes quite different…

From your blog: “Civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle.”

This is where we have inherent disagreement. Homosexuality is generally a matter of nature, not choice; modern-day science is discovering this, and more will be discovered through genetic mapping. There is already an established difference between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are homosexual animals as well, not just humans. Hermaphroditism can exist not only as physical traits, but also as hormonal and unseen brain chemistry, which creates bisexuality and homosexuality.

But even if it is a choice, as you contend, and so many millions of people around the world in EVERY CULTURE live being attracted to the same sex, there is too much prevalence to make it an occasional “freak of nature,” and if you believe it to be a sin, it is only a sin to God, not to other people. Let God judge these people, for you have no right to do so. Obey what you feel are God’s commandments to YOU, without forcing your beliefs on others. That is up to God, not to you. America is a free, secular society that enjoys unlimited beliefs among its people. Let man keep to the laws of man, and each person do what he/she feels right in their relationship to God, if they so choose, as they so believe.

After all, Jesus is pro-choice, and so is God. Check the Bible. From the beginning, God allowed Adam and Eve to make their own choice, even though he told them the consequences; they were still free to make that choice.

You are simply wrong about the conclusive nature of scientific studies. No studies offer conclusive data verifying homosexuality as genetic. None. To suggest otherwise is to intentionally manipulate information to sound like science is on your side. You also have to explain why so many (see: harvest International) have left the lifestyle successfully. Beside, all sexual conduct must have some restraints placed on it. People are not defined by sexual conduct. Heterosexuality is self-verifying as to its natural necessity to human existence. The statistical number of homosexuals is incredibly small. Again, you are stretching the facts to prove your point. And God’s commands are not controlled by us. They stand as they are.

Well, there is nothing disproving it, either. But there is evidence of homosexuality in nature among animals. Since humans are animals, it would prove that homosexuality is natural.

Homosexuals will say that it isn’t a choice, otherwise they would not have chosen to deal with all the hate that comes with it. People against gay marriage will say that homosexuals choose to be homosexual. Let me ask you this: Wouldn’t the homosexual know himself or herself better than someone on the outside?

And God’s commands are not controlled by us? Does it say in the Bible that homosexuality is not right? I don’t know much about the Bible, so I will ask honest questions about it: Who wrote it? When was it written? Whoever wrote it likely lied that he (98% sure it was a man, no woman would ever do it) was talking to God on a two-way radio and only wrote the Bible to control people. Yes, I am a Deist. Prove me wrong about the Bible.

“Civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle.”

It has been established that homosexuality is part of nature and not a chosen lifestyle. I came of age in the 1960’s when homosexuality was against the law. Now who in their right mind would actually choose to be denigrated, discriminated against, and overall shunned from society? This ‘lifestyle’ stuff is just crap. Did all these anti-gay marriage bigots make that painful decision to go against their natural inclination toward homosexuality, and choose a heterosexual lifestyle?

So I guess those that “choose” to be catholic, rather than say atheist should not be granted any particular rights since they have “chosen” the religion. gay marriage does not effect your right to pratice whatever religion you want. The only time you may have to bastardize your religious beliefs and accept gay marriage is if you work in a position that caters to public services. For example the county clerk in a state where gay marriage is legal should not be able to deny a license based on her own religious beliefs. She chose to work in an elected position. If she chooses not to follow the law she can go work at her chucrh!She you do have a “choice”!

This is an oversimplification of the legal issues. It is also to blur the line by confusing religious liberties addressed in the first amendment with special laws desired by homosexuals. Why should someone who serves the public be required to compromise her beliefs because other people want to engage in homosexual acts?

Why should I be forced to compromise my beliefs because someone disagrees with me? My religion states that all people are equal and should have equal rights to marriage, life and opportunities regardless of their sexual preferences. Why should I be forced to compromise my beliefs because others don’t like it?

And homosexuals don’t want a special law, they want a law that is more general and accepting.

tp, you have laid out a logical and reasonable argument which any normal, reasonable American citizen can agree to.

The problem and perhaps you didnt factor this in, is that one side is unflinchingly unreasonable. Just like the Bible said. And its interesting they call that bigotry.

Those who reject even reasonable intent to live in harmony without being forced to accept another’s matrix are blind and would sooner destroy the entire house rather than find a way to live in harmony.

The gay rights movement (both political and religious) has demonstrated they intend to do exactly what the men of Sodom threatened to do to Lot. If he did not agree with them and their demands, they would do violence to him and his family.

When this type of attitude exists (like it eventually came to be in nazi germany) attempts to find common ground will only end in defeat.

The solution? Stand our ground no matter what. If I have to relinquish belief in what I know is right simply for the sake of unity, I have lost my soul.

You have got to be kidding. Shame on you. Equating our efforts in achieving equality to Sodom and Nazi Germany?!!! Hello- do you know where our pink triangle symbol comes from? Look it up. Wiki “Pink Triangle origin” read about how AFTER the concentration camps homosexuals were then held by the new Republic. The Bible speaks against using sexual violence against other people – what version do you study?
Shame on you.
“The gay rights movement (both political and religious) has demonstrated they intend to do exactly what the men of Sodom threatened to do to Lot. If he did not agree with them and their demands, they would do violence to him and his family.”
-statements like these are just disgusting. I have worked for many GLBT rights organozations, and NEVER have I seen or heard violence instigated by ANY of those who I have worked with. what I HAVE seen is self defense from heterosexuals who believe the babble you spurt out, and who are fed with the idiocy that you write. Laid out a good arguement- hardly the case – the ignorance is depressing.
And to whoever said that there is no scientific evidence of homosexuality being natural, you are hopeless- so closed to the truth that you can’t even accept evidence!
Still, after reading all of this from you, the simple question of – How will my marriage or civil union hurt you? is not answered. Are you so weak that my marriage would shatter your moral fiber? Or are you just scared that homosexuals will be better at marriage than heterosexuals?

Also, I don’t see how letting the gays get married forces anyone to approve or like their lifestyle. In the same way that many people are still racist despite the progress made by the equal rights movement. If gay people can marry, you can still disapprove of them, what liberty got taken away?

It’s legal for them to marry in Massachusetts and you’re bitching about it, so clearly there’s no “Forced Tolerance”. Anyway, tolerate means just that, not to approve or enjoy, but to suffer its existence.

The comparison of race with a persons preferred sexual behavior is offensive to all people of race. It is simply a false comparison. And toleration is what gays do not give to those who oppose their lifestyle choices.

There is a valid comparison to be made – not only to civil rights movement but to suffrage as well. Many of the arguments made by people against freed men having rights or women have the right to vote were rooted in the very same book and religious bias that is used now, creating a sense of entitlement and previlege. What people who make such dramatic opposition to gay marriage fail to realize, is the precedent they are setting may come back to haunt them. And Thomas Paine said it best, “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression;for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

“offensive to all persons of race” what does that even mean? As a “person of race,” (black, to be exact), and a queer woman, I don’t find the comparison of what my parents and grandparents went through to what I go through to be offensive. Sure, the level of oppression is (thankfully) not as severe, but the fact remains that the government and the religious right are trying to stifle the rights of people who just want equality. And judging by the tea party stunts of late, having a more inclusive and tolerant society by no means keeps people from being bigots and jerks.

Your same arguements were used at the time of laws defining racial marriages in this nation. Almost to the word…..the same ”logic’ was applied to those wanting to marry outside their race. The mere idea that you use rape and incest in your article about gay marriage is deplorable. There is progress coming to this nation, and nothing you can so or say will slow it down.

Steve, you’re right on there with your article. Circumventing parental authority and rights are part of the aim of gay activists who believe that the younger they can influence children the better. There is no tolerance or freedom involved in their campaign, only dominance of ideas. Any time one set of ideas threatens to dominate to the exclusion of others, our freedom and liberty are at stake.

Because of the complexity of your post I am only address a portion of it, and if I have time I will continue to address things on my own blog. – Thanks.

I agree with your opening statement. “America is a nation of rich multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity. But maintaining civility within diversity requires citizens who respect those who differ from them. Requiring such goodwill is good for the nation…We should not be disrespectful of anyone for matters related to their nature or how they were born. These cannot be chosen or changed.”

But two things I respectfully disagree with are 1) the idea of sexual preference and 2) forcing homosexuality on the populace.

Idea of sexual preference: Homosexuality, whether choice (or as you term preference) or innate, matters not in the course of civil law. Unlike the associations you make with such things as “Rape, incest and all sexual contact between adults and children”, homosexuality causes no harm and, as pertaining to marriage, is most certainly consensual (meaning the two parties are of an age of legal consent). I will note here that any non-consensual sexual contact is never ok.

Forcing homosexuality onto the public: Here I struggle with two arguments with what you suggest. First you suggest by allowing two consenting adults to make a legal and binding commitment, forces those around them in their community, city, state, nation and world, to participate in that union or in your words “force[s] the lifestyle choices of others on everyone”. Now, this seems quite a rather irrational argument, since I am quite sure no other marriage of heterosexuals has forced anyone else heterosexual or homosexual to participate in their union. I am equally certain my neighbors marriage has not once forced me to participate in their union or played any role in my life. Their union is theirs, and affects them alone.

There is a flip side to using this as an argument, that is the idea of forcing of beliefs, in particular religion. It seems many of the arguments both in other posts and in comments, as well as opposing groups views, bring up religion. However, not everyone is of the same religious view. Yet, by making marriage an issue of religion, one can equally argue that by making laws under the pretense of keeping others from sinning or by acknowledging god, one is forcing a particular religious view upon the populace who may or may not be of the same religious belief. For instance, my religion has no issue with homosexuality nor of any two consenting adults (incest is not included in this) getting married, yet by religious people pursuing changes in civil law, those in my religion are forced to comply with beliefs they do not hold and are forbidden (in my state) to perform ceremonies under penalty of fines and jail.

So, with that said, I thoroughly disagree. Liberty is being affected, indeed, but it is not of those who are already married or of those heterosexuals wishing to marry, but of those who are gay and wish to make a legally binding commitment to their partner there by being able to legally support and be held accountable to that person. Here in really lies the injustice.

yes it is forcing society to accept them. The only reason why gays are “hell” bent on finding a genetic predisposition to being gay is so they can throw their hands up and say “well hey God made us this way” umm I do believe there are certain biological arguments against you there. Why would God go to all the effort of making men and women compatible to make more men and women if he would then just decide “hey stuff it, ill create these other people who actually dont contribute to mankind” why would he do that? I find it hilarious that homosexual couples are seeking “straight” people to conceive for them. In doing that you are openly stating that you are not normal because you actually need other people to do something for you because you physically cannot. BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT NORMAL. The fact that to have a child you need sperm and an egg shows that you need a MAN and WOMAN. This is how it was intended no other way. I do not want my children going to school and being forced to accept that that is the way that humans were made. its like homosexuals wanting sesame street to marry bert and ernie. Why does it have to be they jump at the sight of 2 guys being friends and think “hey good idea to infiltrate childrens minds”. Obviously if you feed someone enough crap and only allow that thought then they are going to agree. I feel so sorry for children born and/or raised in a homosexual house. Allowing gays to get married does implore people to agree with their lifestyle because it would be legal and thus legal to question it. Having gay parents is a form of mental abuse to children. The fact that those 2 lesbians allowed their son to take hormone stopping pills so IT could see if IT would like to be a girl is disgusting. A child that has 2 parents of the same sex is going to feel like they want to be like them. You need to relate to people and if you are a boy raised in a “man hating” household then obviously youre not going to want to have a penis. DER! sick of this bullshit. If you want your own tradition go to an island make your own and leave us “normal” people to go forward in the name of GOD and live like we were intended to. penis and vagina TOGETHER

Oh and all the people who say that to be religious you need to be kind otherwise youre actually not living how god wants us to can shut up! God clearly states homosexuals are not accepted. The only way that homosexuals will be accepted is if they repent their sins and change. So good luck!